tv [untitled] October 9, 2010 10:30am-11:00am PST
commissioners. zki live in the neighborhood. i have been here for the past 20 years. francisco and employ hundreds of workers. soi am now retired and have tie to think about some of the matters we are thinking about. 5ifor a long time, i have had a problem of land use. &ñi have thought, the way it has been, it has servedéz more peope than the way it planned to be. qji do not see in this plan something that canha serve more san franciscans then what is there now. ióxñ we all have to study new configuration of+k this planned project. it is opening up more public space. but whatd that space is used, who is 4. i would urge take that into credit -- consideration carefully.
ele was garage space. 2eactually, if you consider the maritime buildingó- parking spaces, we actually have a surplus. the problem isq/ñ cited and trac flow, allowing this space to be used by other people. to opportunistic about this project -- tooao opportunistic about this project. whendi asked somebody above why this project could not be is the only one that there is any planning or money behind. it is a bird in hand. that is probably true, urge you not to be too optimistic3m -- opportunistic about this. there have been studiesd
look at plans that you have not considered. ould urge you to lot those. it is possible that you could get more comprehensive plan than you will from this bird in hand. any additional public comment 5fñ(>> good evening, commission. tñi am a resident of san francisco for over 35 yearstç. i am also an architect practicing, h'h in the city along the waterfront. so i am commenting as a resident and also as aeu design professional. architt
of this project. what i have seen so far, the concept design is r÷ based on . the pedestrian connections through jackson is the right thing to do had a greedy developer build over that, but they did the right thing, ÷vopening up the commission. it really addresses the mixe/usc realm. the embarcadero is one oféé the rounds that we are talking about. it is really for th" entire city of san francisco. i am looking at the bigger picture, which is beyondf neighborhood of the golden gate commons, beyond the neighborhood that] is connecting to chinato. it is for the rest of the city. 0ñi work here, my wife works at
mission bay. we are verykú familiar with the waterfront and we see this as a resourceful all of san francisco. ñ--n francisco. ;ññthe massing of the building s appropriate, basedk adjacent buildings. i also applaud the conceptual design i love the more moderate direction it is taking. g"i believe the contrast with e historic isyz great, yin-yang, highlights the historic architecture tha" we have here. i would like to say that i am supporting the general concept îi the project. thank you. >> any other public comment]÷ ok, commissioners? qmrs, comments? >>]d jonathan, i just want to kw
% conservative? >> i think we are. 6?the $10 million is the net pres$q value of the transactions, and it is put up =ébetween upfront payments and long term lease payments+zñ for these covenants that we are askingójñ for on residential and commercial condominiums. i admit,km i was relatively conservative in projecting the revenues. complex calculation of how many sales there willsz be per year, how t the appreciation will be on those condominiums. ¥that is the primary difference between the numbers i have 2
$11 million that they showed. of the jzpromises of this project is it has a number of revenue sources, long-term revenue sources, but it is untested. it is something that public agencies are looking at now. we do not have a long track record on private-public land to say much. >> support versus city revenues? -- the port versus city revenues? >> going back to the term sheet, there are a number of details from the physical and financial structure that are not done. right now, what we have is that bilateral transaction -- a bilateral transaction between the term sheet and developer.
what will ultimately happen is a much more complex transaction. there are a number of structures contemplated in this term sheet that will need city approval. that is why, particularly for the next that, we win the endorsement from the board of supervisors. >> thank you for asking the questions. i do not have any other questions, but just over all comment. i thank everyone for their comments in support and opposition. i have some personal experience doing sumter in construction along the waterfront. it is monday, messy, but it can be done. the square footage we are able to obtain by doing that cannot happen physically.
i also want to mention more of a personal note, a strange coincidence. i am a member of bay club here. they're swimming pool when other construction recently, so they redirected their members to the golden gate tennis and swim club. i have had the pleasure of swimming there for the past four weeks. swimming there is great. what is nicer is sitting in the lounge chairs in the sun. it is absolutely a garden spot in that part of the city. maybe the larger buildings protect the wind there. i sat there and i am embarrassed that i am a member, and i cannot share that with my kids.
i do not have a family membership. it would be great to open up that space to public and park space, let some other people enjoy this wonderful geographical spot we have here. so with that, i am in support of approving the term sheet today. we do have a motion and a second. i want to clarify the port's position on something before i call for questions. the commission acknowledges there will be changes to this project and revisions to the problem that are typical of the ceqa and public review process. we reiterate this term sheet is only to set forth the fundamental terms of the proposed project in keeping with the port commissions standard practices for developing projects. we will revisit the project when a port commission considers approval of the project following completion of the ceqa review. commissioners, any other
questions? so there is a motion, 2nd. all those in favor? any opposed? ok. thank you very much. resolution 10-66 is approved. >> we have some other port business. if you could exit if you are going to and finish your conversation away from the door, that would be great. thank you. >> item 12 a. informational presentation regarding the port of san
>> ok, commissioners. special projects manager. here to speak to you about a proposed retail leasing policy. i want to acknowledge, this has been a group effort -- this has been a group effort. port management, assistant director of real estate, deputy director of real estate, and others have all contributed to the development of this proposed policy. the port has had a retail leasing policy approved by the port commission in 1993. it has been a fairly successful policy. that policy
requires competitive bidding for new retail opportunities to provide new market entrants a chance to do business on the waterfront. including local business enterprises. that balances the need of the port to keep tenants who are performing well, who have built successful businesses along the waterfront and are willing to make additional investment. most of the policy discussion today is meant as a refinement of that existing policy. as i mentioned, the port commission adopted the existing policy in 1993. recently, the port commission has adopted two lease renewal
extensions pursuant to the policy. i would just remind you pier 47 in fisherman's wharf, a 15-year term. tenant invested three-quarters of a million dollars into the property. base rent increased 100% under that deal compared to the prior base rent paid by the tenant. java house llc, was a 15-year deal with a 2% increase. so we have had good -- 200% increase. so we have had good luck keeping good tenants in there at the port. i will go through the proposed policy terms. we are setting specifically the administrative code that deals with police opportunities, competitive bidding.
the policy describes the way in which port staff will competitively bid new retail opportunities which includes broad public notice, inclusion of lbe businesses through the offices of the human rights commission. the bidding can either be request for proposal or request for qualifications, depending on the site. we have had experiences recently where existing tenants who are not retail tenants have wanted to open up a retail component of their business. we certainly understand that people -- existing tenants may have the business acumen to be successful in that venture, however, since most of those
tenants arrived at property without competitive bidding, allowing them to open up a retail opportunity would conflict with city policy. so we are recommending an existing non-portended was to open a retail opportunity, then they should be approved, first by approval from the commission. we would evaluate rural requests on a case by case basis, balancing the need for competitive bidding so there can be new market entrants, and try to keep successful businesses on port property. we looked at the proposed improvements in the capital investment by the port tenants. generally speaking, we are looking for investment in utilities, 88 improvements, other publicly oriented
amenities that increase the value of port property as opposed to purely tenant improvements that benefit the business. the port may have future plans for such a site which means continuing with our current tenant for a lease extension does not make sense. perhaps there was a development project proposed. obviously, we look at the tenants history. have they been in compliance with their release, are they in good standing? we would be looking for use is consistent with the waterfront plan, other regulatory overlays. so we would recommend renewal under the following circumstances. first, short-term extensions, three, five years during a recession or when we know we are in a commercial real-estate downturn.
then it would be our recommendation that we keep the tenants who are paying rent rather than try to go to an uncertain competitive bid process. for a term which is the greater of 10 years or the time required to ever tie proposed improvements when the tenant is in good standing, they provide a sound business plan with audited financial and tax returns for the last several years, detail about their proposed capital improvements. this is a point i want to highlight. the tenant has a revenue history over the past three years that is better than average for like- poor tenants. -- like-port tenants. we really tried to retain those tenants who are high performers. lastly, if we perform our
request for interest, an informal testing of the marketplace, we have no expressions of interest to extend the term of an existing tenant for the time of five years. an example could be that they are not able to make an daa substantial investment that property, but we want to keep them going. we recommend a few findings from the port commission. we commonly asked the commission make a finding that the practical to a lease. this is the exception to the administrative code section that i mentioned, so the board and analysts can recognize it is practical. also, the capital improvements they are making to public property serve a public purpose. those findings together justify
not performing the bid process. we would bring all of the leases of two standard -- up to standard for new lease terms. that includes insurance, not appropriate participation rent, and also if there is a sale or refinancing. that ends my presentation. i will open up to any questions from the commission. >> are you planning on an open meeting for tenants to come, at any session to inform the tenants about the change? >> we could bring this to the pork advisory committee. i am not sure that all of them -- ports advisory committee. i am not sure if all of them
have an interest in leasing them. if you are suggesting the south beach area, new ag, those are the home to the proponents of our retail activities. we can certainly bring those forward. >> thank you. >> thank you for your consideration. >> item 13. new business. >> could be as for public comment, for the record. we are being televised. >> any public comment on item 12a? >> paul, would you like to comment? >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am the director of development for san francisco waterfront partners. i am here as a former member of
the staff. those are common-sense changes to the policy. i was on the staff when it was adopted in 1993. i have observed it, the problems it has created. it is a difficult situation. but i believe the recommendations!.z that have ben established will make it easier for your longtime businesses to stay and have a clearer path forward to know that you have a statement of -- we like you, we are going to directly negotiate with you. those are good changes. >> thank you. ok, any other public comment? >> item 13. new business. >> any new business?